[M3devel] Release Engineering: 5.8 --> 5.9? was: Re: release vs. head?

[Tony Hosking]

On 17 Jan 2010, at 08:42, Jay K wrote:

> We can stick with the current release branch if that is indeed much easier.
> 
> 
> I thought there was some agreement we shouldn't release LONGINT as it was.

Indeed!

> I can undo the changes if we want.
> It's not easy with cvs (not much is) but I can do it.
> It's easy for me to diff the trees, just using windiff or diff (again, cvs
> seems not to help).

Surely we can move forward on this.

> Many/most/all of the fixes went first into head, so there's "nothing" to merge back,
> but diff tells us better.

I agree.

> I'm still planning on setting up some more machines and can do FreeBSD4.
> (I have PPC64_DARWIN and PPC32_OPENBSD about ready, but
> I have to check if Modula-3 actually works on them first...)

Let's not worry about additional targets. 

> Does anyone have the missing steps for the cvsup bug report, like the configuration file,
> can show the callstacks, try it with user threads..etc..?

Maybe cvsup should not be part of the release?

> 
> 
>  - Jay
> 
> 
> > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:38:16 +0100
> > From: wagner at elegosoft.com
> > To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > Subject: [M3devel] Release Engineering: 5.8 --> 5.9? was: Re: release	vs.	head?
> > 
> > Quoting Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>:
> > 
> > > Should we just make a new release branch?
> > > Or I keep copying stuff over somewhat selectively?
> > > We do want LONGCARD in the release, I assume.
> > >
> > > I'll diff the two trees again, see what varies.
> > > Sometimes when I do that I find stuff to take.
> > > And take the LONGCARD changes.
> > 
> > From a release engineering point of view this is more or less
> > a nightmare. We cannot make incompatible extensions to the feature
> > set after the fourth release candidate.
> > 
> > The only clean way I'd see to even get the LONGINT changes into the
> > next release would be to start anew. Meaning declaring 5.8.4 as
> > the latest release and develop 5.9 on the trunk. Of course we'd
> > have to carefully merge back any fixes that might be missing on the
> > trunk right now.
> > 
> > That said, I have currently neither the time nor the energy to do all
> > that cleanly. I didn't even get round to set up release builds
> > on new.elego.de via Hudson in order to cover the FreeBSD4 target
> > platform we recently lost in the release due to my home machine's
> > complete crash in December. So the release engineering support is not
> > in the best of states I must admit.
> > 
> > I could live with declaring 5.8.RC4 as an intermediate release,
> > but somebody really needs to do all the housekeeping of comparing
> > and merging branches. And we shouldn't start a new release branch
> > until things have settled down.
> > 
> > Is anybody interested in taking over some of the release engineering
> > tasks (including Hudson management and re-targeting to the new release)?
> > 
> > Please keep in mind that we haven't managed to get out a stable release
> > for several years now.
> > 
> > Olaf
> > -- 
> > Olaf Wagner -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
> > Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
> > phone: +49 30 23 45 86 96 mobile: +49 177 2345 869 fax: +49 30 23 45 86 95
> > http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
> > Handelregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194
> > 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20100117/cae01ca8/attachment-0002.html>